People v. Stonom

California Court of Appeal Feb 23, 1956 No. Crim. 1053Published

Before: Barnard

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant's motion to set aside the judgment was insufficient to warrant relief or the appointment of counsel because it failed to allege specific facts, demonstrate due diligence, or show a lack of knowledge at the time of trial.

Issues

Whether the defendant's motion to set aside the judgment sufficiently alleged grounds for a writ of error coram nobis.
Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's request for the appointment of counsel to assist with the motion to set aside the judgment.

Disposition. Appeals from judgment and new trial order dismissed; order denying motion to vacate judgment affirmed.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“While the motion to set aside the judgment was verified, the allegation here in question was not only a pure conclusion but it set forth no statement of fact with sufficient clarity or definiteness”

“No showing as to lack of knowledge at the time of judgment, or as to the matter of diligence, was here made and no explanation of the delay was offered.”

“In our opinion, the showing here made is not sufficient to justify a reversal of the order denying the motion to set aside the judgment.”

BARNARD, P. J.

The defendant was charged with the murder of his wife. Counsel was appointed by the court and he entered a plea of not guilty. On the second day of the

[409]

trial, with the permission of the court, he withdrew his plea of not guilty and pleaded guilty. A hearing was then held for the purpose of enabling the court to fix the degree of murder, at which exhibits were introduced and a number of witnesses examined, including the defendant and another witness on his behalf. The court fixed the degree at first degree murder. A motion for a new trial was denied and the defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment, the judgment being entered on February 16, 1955. No appeal was taken from the judgment.

The defendant filed, in propria persona, a verified motion to set aside the judgment. While this is dated August 28, 1955, it was filed on September 28, 1955. It was accompanied by a motion for the appointment of counsel. On September 28, 1955, the court entered an order denying the motion to set aside the judgment, and denying the motion for appointment of counsel.

On October 5,1955, the defendant, in propria persona, gave notice of appeal from the final judgment of conviction entered in the action, from the order denying his motion for a new trial, and from the order denying his motion to set aside the judgment. The defendant filed an opening brief and thereafter requested this court to appoint counsel to represent him on this appeal. This court appointed the same attorney who had represented him at the original trial, and this attorney then filed another brief.

The motion to set aside the judgment sets forth a large number of grounds upon which it is based, including the insufficiency of the evidence, errors in connection with the admission of evidence, and prejudice on the part of the trial judge. Among the grounds stated was the following: “The defendant was influenced to change his plea of not guilty to guilty through fear of the death penalty by Coroner J. C. Canale. Defendant was further persuaded to change his plea by Officer Creason as to his belief.”

It clearly appears that most of the grounds alleged as a basis for the motion are without merit, being matters which would have been reviewable on an appeal.

People v. Stonom

AI Brief

BARNARD, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief